OT: Soviet Re-Birth

[Atrocities]

I am firmly entrenched as a moderate. I value ideals from both parties. However I will not vote for either of the two candidates for President. I just cannot do it. Of all the people who could run, these, these three, are all that we get to choose from? The system is broken. I just cannot believe that these are the turds that managed to not get flushed away. What are the odds?

[Fyron]

AgentZero said:
Communism is an economic system. Democracy is a political system. There's no reason the two can't co-exist, even in the same country.

In theory, that is true. In practice, its very difficult to actually maintain communism and democracy in the same system. Communism goes against every basic instinct of mankind (greed, self-interest, the desire to better one's lot in life), and requires major sacrifices and suppression to maintain. Very few people would willingly wish to actually live in a communist ideal, which leads to those in power in such systems often resorting to violence to maintain the system, and eventually totalitarianism. We have plenty of examples of this, but 0 examples of well-functioning, democratic communist societies.

Randallw said:
I don't know what form of ID you are speaking of but the idea that God created Earth is theology not biology.

Yes, this is true. But according to the Intelligent Design movement, it is biology, and should be taught as an alternative to evolution. Its a massive problem here in the States.. Every time it gets shot down in the courts, it morphs into a new form and begins is reign of terror anew in another state.

I also don't know what fundamentalists believe. If it's not Catholic or Orthodox I just label it as Protestant and delve no further.

Intentional ignorance damages one's ability for critical thought. Refusing to learn about the other is what has lead to most conflicts throughout history.

Violence isn't an aspect of religion, it's an aspect of people.

Careful with the blanket statements you make; history is filled with religions founded entirely on violence. Mayans and Aztecs make the most horrific examples, but there have been "death cults" and such all throughout history. All of the modern major world religions are founded on peaceful precepts, but that doesn't mean organized religion never has any aspects of violence. If you still wish to say violence is only an aspect of people, you must also logically say that peace is also only an aspect of people, not of religion.

People are flawed and ruin whatever they claim to believe in.

Exactly. This is why its best to keep religion out of government, because those in power will use it to benefit the "official religion" at the expense of everyone else. I put that in scare quotes because it still happens even when the organized religion in question isn't technically the official state religion. Most modern democracies forbid the intermingling of state and religion for very good reason..

I don't exactly know what Humanism is.

Wikipedia knows.

[Spectarofdeath]

I don't worry about them being communist on it's own, I worry more about a allied Russia and China and yes, I know it's got like not even .10 chance of happening.

Edit: Yipeee!!! 300 posts!!!

[Renegade 13]

AgentZero said:
Renegade: My main issue with Harper is the fact that he seems quite in favour of passing his conservative Christian beliefs into laws. I have no particular issue with leaders having conservative (or any other) religious views, but when they attempt to force these beliefs on people who don't share them by enacting them as secular laws, such action tends to reduce me to an incoherent frothy-mouthed zealot whose most eloquent statement on the subject can be summed up as, "RAHHH! YOU BAD! AZ SMASH NOW!"

State <================================================= ====> Church

Isn't that how it's supposed to work?

It is indeed. I guess because I am a very right-leaning person, that I see him as much better than the crap-*** Liberals we had in for far far far too long previously (and, by the way, I still think he's 10 times better).

Plus, you have to like a leader who doesn't go around bashing our largest trading partner and biggest ally (the US) like the Liberals (and NDP, who continue to do so... hippy bastards) did the last few years they were in.

And yet, at the same time, isn't afraid to wave the big stick at the US when the time is right.

Remember a few weeks ago, maybe even a couple months ago, during some US Democratic campaigning ****e, Obama and Clinton were both yapping about renegotiating NAFTA because they were whining that it was hurting the automobile manufacturing sector in states like (I think) Michigan and Pennsylvania, to be more in the US's favor.

Harper's comment was something along the lines of... Ok, we'll renegotiate NAFTA, but remember, Canada is the largest supplier by far to the US of energy, primarily in the form of oil, so if you want to renegotiate NAFTA, we have a way better bargaining chip.

In other words, he's not afraid to wave the big stick, while also not pointlessly bashing the US like previous gov't's have. That, I like.

=========

As for the US election... I think you're screwed no matter who you get. Sorry, but that's how I see it.

As long as someone has to be extraordinarily wealthy to come into the highest political office you have, there's something wrong with the system. When you have to spend millions of your own money to even stand a chance at having your name known to the voting public, or to stand a chance of being your party's candidate, the system is screwed.

There could be plenty of people out there, ready, willing and capable of leading your country to better times, but they lack the financial resources to make it happen, to even be considered. This, in my opinion, is just wrong. That said... I don't know how to avoid it with your current electoral system.

[Spectarofdeath]

So liberty and equality = rich live like kings and poor homeless, well thats just their problem, at least their equal to the rich...until it comes to who has the $ to throw around. Sorry, there's no such thing as equality when it concerns humans. As far as the election thing goes, I never said base it solely off of popular vote, but the way it is now the pop. vote is pretty much discarded (to my knowledge anyway).

[Atrocities]

Everybody thank you all for playing nice and please continue to do so. Thank you.

[AgentZero]

I think one of the big problems facing America right now is the concept that you must chose between Democrats and embrace all liberal ideals, or Republicans and embrace all the conservative ideals. But most people I know don't fully subscribe to the right or the left. Personally, my views on civil matters (gay marriage, healthcare, education) are fairly liberal, though some (ie: Abortion) are closer to the conservative view. But then my economic views coincide quite well with the conservative outlook, though I have some economic opinions that approach socialism.

Which inevitably means that I wind up voting for a different party every election. I might vote liberal one year so they can pass protections for "alternative lifestyles" one year, then conservative the next to fix the economy.

I think most countries would be a lot better off if they just dropped this right-left division, and let people vote for the candidate they felt best represented their views.

[Fyron]

Spectarofdeath said:
So liberty and equality = rich live like kings and poor homeless..

Red herring. The only people that are actually homeless are those that have already given up. Noone that makes an effort to live a decent life falls that far. Do you have an actual argument to present?

the way it is now the pop. vote is pretty much discarded (to my knowledge anyway).

No it isn't. The popular vote determines who gets the electoral college votes in each state. There is simply a false dichotomy presented about the nation-wide popular vote in the simplified electoral college "debate" as presented by various politicians. Its important in a strong centralized system of government where provincial governments are simply subdivisions of the national government, but that is not what we have in the US. How the national popular vote goes is irrelevant in the confederation style of the US, where the federal government is elected piecemeal by the states. This piecemeal nature defines everything about the entire governmental structure of the US, and you can't just arbitrarily pull out pieces of it like a Jenga block tower.

[Spectarofdeath]

Not trying to get into a fight with you. I just feel that if taxes are going to be "equal" across the board then pay and cost of living should be as well. However since they aren't I feel taxes shouldn't be either. If I make 20k a year and 10% goes to taxes that 2000 is going to hurt me a hell of alot more then the 10k that would come out of someone who makes 100,000.00. Sure their paying alot more, but they also have enough to still live comfortably and not have to worry about do I put gas in the car for work or food on the table? Do I pay the medical bills or the utilities bill? I can understand if your someone making something like 55,000.00 or more or really any amount how you feel it's unfair that you have to pay more than others, but put the shoe on the other foot, your the guy making minimum wage working 50 hours a week and still struggling while the guy who owns the place you work for pays the exact same amount as you while making 3-4 times what you make. Shouldn't everyone have a equal chance to live the american dream or should it just be for the wealthy? I'm pretty sure I know the reaction this will have, "everyone has equal chance, they choose not to take it" Not everyone is born in the same area with the same chances and nobody gets to choose what kind of life their born into. Anyway, you either get what I'm saying or you don't. I won't be responding to anymore regarding this subject as apparently a mod is thinking we're fighting (even though I've seen much worse on these forums).

As far as Russia, I'm not going to be too worried unless they go back to communism which I doubt they will do. It's pretty obvious that the whole president-prime minister thing is just a way to get around the term limitations, seeing as how the president is supposed to be his hand picked successor. Maybe we should get them to join NATO?